Cladistics claims “the contrary”

Biological systematics developed from about 350 BC to about 1700 AC in an objective scientific context from Aristotle’s first steps using generics, specifics and specific differences into Linné’s ingenious, orthogonal hierarchical classificatory system.

About 300 years later, the German entomologist Willi Hennig turned this 2000-year scientific development up-side-down and in-side-out into the purely subjective context of the pre-Aristotelian, ancient Greek Parmenides, which has since then (during the last 50 years) developed into the approach called “cladistics”. Cladistics has thus during the last 50 years diverted from an objective scientific context. At the same time as the Linnean system in science has developed into consistent object-oriented programming (OOP) in IT and also provided the foundation for consistent CAD (and thus CAM), cladistics in biological systematics has instead taken the orthogonal route "denying" the Linnean system and instead only "acknowledging" consistent contradiction. Cladistics has thus initiated an orthogonal battle against objective science (hitherto only in biological systematics).

The reason for cladistics' obviously insensible, orthogonal line of reasoning appears to be that cladists considers this route to be simpler (“more parsimonious”, as they express it) than consistent objectivity is, thereby obviously dismissing the consideration of sensibility. Cladists obviously don’t care about whether they contradict both facts and themselves consistently, as long as they are principally simple-minded. Instead, they are actually guided by simplemindedness itself (which they call “being parsimonious”). And, the most parsimonious you can be is, of course, to believe whatever you may believe (and "deny" other beliefs).

It means that cladistics claims “the contrary” (to both other beliefs, objective scientific thinking and itself). It actually claims contradiction itself. It is an eternal merry-go-round of orthogonal conceptual triangulation, wherein everthing is contradicted (because the approach is founded on contradiction). It does neither actually try to find something, but instead tries to get rid of the factual contradiction to it, that is, what it calls “paraphyletic groups”. It actually believes it can make one brain-ghost come true by getting rid of another brain-ghost. And, since it denies facts, nothing can stop it from trying (forever). It can actually run around its eternal merry-go-round driven by its claim of "the contrary" forever, because it is disconnected from sense.

If cladistics isn’t a historical record of misunderstanding and confusion, then Einstein is, and the reverse. One of them has to be. The fact that classification is orthogonal means that it is cladistics that is the historical record of misunderstanding and confusion. It actually believes that there is an objective subjectivity to be found, although a such can only be what one says it is, that is, a subjectivity.